Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

alphadogg writes: "Americans are optimistic about scientific inventions on the horizon, though are cautious about future uses of DNA, robots, drones and always-on implants, according to the latest Pew Research Center survey on future technology (PDF). Asked about the likelihood of certain advances 50 years from now, survey respondents were most sure that lab-grown custom organs for transplant will happen (81%). Only 19% expect humans will be able to control the weather by then. When asked how they felt about possible near-term advances, 65% thought robot caregivers for the elderly is a bad idea, 63% didn't want to see personal drones in U.S. airspace, and 66% thought parents altering the DNA of prospective children was a bad idea."

What if eugenics stopped involving depriving people of their right to reproduce, and instead just targeted the actual genes/gene combinations that are "bad"?

Could we get the best of both worlds? Or is eugenics always wrong, on account of pre-judging people on DNA? Regardless of the ethics, I find myself getting strongly behind genetic engineering of that sort being available, at least.

What if eugenics stopped involving depriving people of their right to reproduce, and instead just targeted the actual genes/gene combinations that are "bad"?

Could we get the best of both worlds? Or is eugenics always wrong, on account of pre-judging people on DNA? Regardless of the ethics, I find myself getting strongly behind genetic engineering of that sort being available, at least.

Looking at the world today, and how those in power treat those who are not, do you honestly think humanity would be responsible with that kind of power? Or would powerful people try and manipulate the general public into supporting the elimination of "genetic abnormalities" that aren't directly detrimental to society at large, but rather represent a threat to their monopoly on power?

I.e., the oligarchs would absolutely love being able to stomp out dissent genetically.

And... what exactly is this means you're thinking they'll have? We're talking GATTACA kinds of manipulation of recombination, not complete genome rewrites, which are so far beyond our capacity as to still be sci-fi.

Well, one obvious way to do it would be to set up a pricing structure for designer babies such that the babies with the Politically Correct genome (whatever that is conceived to be) waaay cheaper than the non-PC genomes.

I mean, something as simple as "white babies 1/2 off this month only!" would be vile beyond belief, and almost certainly done if it were possbile.

You could also look for genetic defects common to [minority you despise] and offe

We're talking GATTACA kinds of manipulation of recombination, not complete genome rewrites, which are so far beyond our capacity as to still be sci-fi.

FWIW, 15 years ago we were saying that very thing about a lot of the technology that exists today - like drones, hypersonic aircraft, incredibly powerful computers that fit in a pocket, stem cells, government agencies with the ability to monitor every communication on the planet, rail guns, etc.

I don't necessarily disagree with you about genetic engineering being within a lifetime. But...15 years ago, seriously? Most of those things were considered plausible, not sci-fi. Hell, in 1999 we *assumed* we'd have incredibly powerful computers in our pockets and we often see articles disappointed that we haven't met 1999's expectations. Remember, it was 2001 when the infamous stem cell research funding ban came into effect. Drones were used in the first Gulf War in 1991, and it was big news when the

I think genetic engineering is definitely within a lifetime. We have been making genetic changes in the germline of mice for over 25 years. It was horribly inefficient for about 23 of those years. Now, it is fairly easy with RNA Guided Nucleases like CRISPR/Cas9. We are starting to develop treatments for diseases based on engineering somatic cells in adults. Going to germline modification in the human will take some technological developmental and refinements. But, it is not a large conceptual step to go to

Just as the strongest argument against communism is to simply point at every attempt to implement it, likewise the strongest argument against Eugenics is to look at all the times we (US, Germany, etc) attempted it.

Its not a good path to go down. It invariably leads towards first/second class citizens, people whose ability to reproduce is considered detrimental to society, and a tyranny of the masses.

At this point I view eugenics as nearly always bad. With most "improvement" we'll most likely reduce our diversity, and that's pretty bad. Then there is what we view as good for us, and what is good for us is sometimes two different things. There does seem to be a form of what I'll say is epieuginics coming about were instead of tampering with the DNA in a way that removes diversity that it just turns off the currently undesired gene, but could later be turned back on in a future generation. What I've read

Anyway, I think the problem is likely to be the opposite. More likely that whacky people - the sort that currently name their children things like "Pilot Inspektor" and "Crime Fighter", are also the sort of people who would think it fun to opt for a green baby, one who will grow to 8 ft high, or one with four arms.

On of the problems is that some very positive features may be associated with some very negative ones. Is compulsive behavior linked to high productivity in some jobs? Great leaders and great revolutionaries may have similar traits. Is artistic ability linked to depression?

I fear creating a world full of "ordinary" people, because we don't want a Cesar.

They do, but in most western countries, there's this idea that anybody can make it rich, if they're good enough. If it gets to the point where the rich kids are inherently smarter/better than the poor kids, no amount of work will be able to lift a person up. They'll be stuck where they're born and that's it.

This is the kind of blatant generalizations that cause unnecessary fear of government drones.FEMA is a government agency and could use drones to quickly survey disaster areas and send help where it is need.The Forest Service is a government agency that could use drones to spot for water bombers and keep pilots out of dangerous situations.The Forest Service can also use drones to survey the health of the forests.There are many very good uses for government drones.

They lead to more spying, which is what GP said but was omitted in your quote.

I omitted it because it it is true. I question the part about "more death and destruction". I am allowed to question part of a statement without questioning every singe part.

And sooner or later they'll be armed, let's not kid our selves.

Spying does not inevitably lead to armed drones, lets not be paranoid. If armed drones are ever proposed then we can deal with the proposal. That is not happening now so lets just deal with surveillance drones.

My original statement still holds "Not all government drones are bad".

They lead to more spying, which is what GP said but was omitted in your quote.

I omitted it because it it is true. I question the part about "more death and destruction". I am allowed to question part of a statement without questioning every singe part.

And sooner or later they'll be armed, let's not kid our selves.

Spying does not inevitably lead to armed drones, lets not be paranoid. If armed drones are ever proposed then we can deal with the proposal. That is not happening now so lets just deal with surveillance drones.

My original statement still holds "Not all government drones are bad".

Wait, what??? "If armed drones are ever proposed then we can deal with the proposal." Is this along the same vein as, when the US government gave the CIA and NSA armed drones with Hellfire missiles, there was a very public and conscientious debate about their use, when to use them, when not to use them, and who will provide oversight and transparency to the process of killing by armed drone?

I agree 100% with the grandparent poster. We'll know when the drones are armed after the trigger is already pulled.

There is a huge difference between the use of armed drones on US soil and armed droned in lawless areas of the World. If there were local law enforcement strong enough to deal with terrorist leaders the CIA and NSA would not need armed drones.

We'll know when the drones are armed after the trigger is already pulled.

How will banning unarmed drones stop armed drones is, a you say, they are going to happen anyway? If an unauthorized armed drone ever fires anything in the US the government will change in the next election.

OK, I get that it is currently a bad idea to try to clone humans or modify an embryo's DNA. We essentially do not yet know how do it with an acceptable safety. So, the process is likely to cause harm to humans, and is wrong.

But eventually, it will be safe and probably fairly easy.

At that point, what is wrong with eliminating a mutation in an embryo to prevent a disease during subsequent adulthood. And if there is nothing wrong with that, then what is wrong with making a change to make the eventual adult

Because then any babies that are not designer babies will become second class citizens. For instance, the scenario posited by the movie Gattaca.

The real dangers here is that it could eventually cause the designer part of the species to form a new subspecies of homo sapiens. Or perhaps accidentally engineer out something that could (in theory) allow non-engineered humans to resist a disease or some other sort of thing that would cause them harm, though that is far less likely.

I think you're looking at the issue wrong. There are already many second-class citizens in the world, and with depressing uniformity, they produce offspring who themselves grow up to be second class citizens. Having the option to genetically engineer traits that are highly correlated with success and satisfaction could be the very thing we need to beat this generational trap. Maybe the best way to see genetic engineering is to compare it with buying college for your children. Sure, that puts them "ahead" of

Various biochemical pathways are conserved, and are there to react to different environmental conditions.

Disease is a moving target. As we suppress one disease, another takes its niche.

In most cases we only know the primary biochemical pathway, have sparse information on the secondary biochemical pathway which kicks in when the primary pathway is disrupted, and have little to no information on the evolutionarily conserved tertiary biochemical pathway we inherited fro

The assumption here is that there is no set of genes that are guaranteed to be purely negative for humankind. That's just false. There's just no reason we'd want to let somebody grow up with cystic fibrosis, for instance. The sickle-cell anemia vs. malaria case is actually unusual, and a population high in sickle-cell anemic individuals is not actually a desirable outcome.

Also, if we can prevent genetic engineering, then surely we can prevent choosing the gender of children. If you can't prevent choosin

The assumption here is that there is no set of genes that are guaranteed to be purely negative for humankind. That's just false. There's just no reason we'd want to let somebody grow up with cystic fibrosis, for instance.

Yes, except being heterozygous for the cystic fibrosis mutation actually turns out to give resistance to cholera, in the same way that being heterozygous for sickle cell gives resistance to malaria.

The sickle-cell anemia vs. malaria case is actually unusual, and a population high in sickle-cell anemic individuals is not actually a desirable outcome.

The former is false, the latter is true. The only reason something as disadvantageous as sickle cell has existed to be passed down through the generations is, and I cannot stress this enough, malaria is such a horrible disease (and thus a good natural selector) that such a disadvantage can be outweighed by its su

Why on Earth would you assume that he's opposed to GMO for other animals, once it's safe enough for humans?

What a bizarre assertion. I certainly would have no problems with that. In fact, if you can modify the animal to grow up without a brain, so that it's no longer an ethical concern for a certain subset of vegetarians and vegans, that's even better.

The Moscow Mayer promised it would not snow in Moscow. He planned to do it by seeding the clouds before they got to Moscow so they would be depleted and not drop snow on Moscow. Cloud seeding is very minor and basically just changes where precipitation will fall.To me weather control is much more broad such as disrupting hurricanes, redirecting systems to help with drought, significantly effecting temperatures, etc.

"...66% thought parents altering the DNA of prospective children was a bad idea..."

Unfortunately, nearly half of Americans still have no problem surgically altering [youtube.com] the genitals of their sons in order to suit their own aesthetic and sexual preferences or to satisfy their own religious blood rituals.

None of our doctors advise against it, most will say there's a slight advantage to it. Of course the fathers weigh in here, and say "eh well it didn't hurt me, if the doctor says it's what you should do... "

Look at places where Christianity is NOT the major religion, this kind of artificial genital alteration are NOT generally practiced.

Not to mention the firestorm the doctor can expect if he dared to go on record advising against circumcision in America.

Look at places where Christianity is NOT the major religion, this kind of artificial genital alteration are NOT generally practiced.

Huh? You do know that circumcision is primarily associated with Jewish and Muslim practice, right? It wasn't until the past 150 years or so with supposed "hygienic" movements that Christians became circumcised in some countries. It was doctors driving the practice, not religion... in fact, for centuries it was considered a mortal sin in Catholicism to circumcise anyone.

A drone is just a remote controlled aircraft with a camera. I had several "drones" in the late 1980's as a teenager, for fuck's sake. Get over the knee-jerk raction equating "drone" with "terminator T-1000" and come back to sanity.

Drone are actually at this day, used to kill people in other part of the world. They were not back in then 1980's. Furthermore with the incisingly militarisation of the police in the USA, the two fears are : 1) it will make it very easy to itnroduce massive "eye in the sky" surveillance everywhere in the US 2) that the drone will not stay "passive civilian like" but acquiere first strike capabilities on US soil too.

And seeing the evolution of the no knock raid, and the surveillance society the US is build

True, but we're already pretty far with personal drones. They don't need to have a gun on them to be dangerous. If the personal drone thing takes off, the government won't need to operate spy drones, the public will do it for them.

I've debated a lot of gun rights supporters, and I get a distinct impression that they are heavily influenced by just what you describe. They seem fixated on scenarios that could come straight out of a movie - they love to talk about how they will defend their family against home invasion, or shoot a mugger, or stop the rampaging gunmen before he kills innocent people.

You would be surprised, but sometimes the unlikely movie scenarios do happen. Happened to me recently. Luckily, I had the 'other' lethal weapon with me, which resulted in the other guy having broken bones, not me. You don't need a gun 99.9% days of your life, but when you do, it can decide the outcome between life and death.

If the personal drone thing takes off, the government won't need to operate spy drones, the public will do it for them.

Just look at all the cell phone pictures you see posted around the internet, cats, stupid accidents, and girls butts, etc. I doubt that personal drones are going to garner the kind of information a government spy agency would want or at least make really hard to sift through.

If the personal drone thing takes off, the government won't need to operate spy drones, the public will do it for them.

Just look at all the cell phone pictures you see posted around the internet, cats, stupid accidents, and girls butts, etc. I doubt that personal drones are going to garner the kind of information a government spy agency would want or at least make really hard to sift through.

Exactly. How do personal drones equal government surveillience? The cell phones that most people carry provide a huge amount of data for the government. The phone sends its location, autoposts pictures and videos in the internet and stores a ton of data "in the cloud". It has a microphone, camera and the means to send data to an arbitrary place. Phones are nearly ubiquitous and have a ton of data on the person using them.

Contrast this with a drone. It is controlled and transmits video using a point to

"X is absurd" is a statement that X is false in an extremely obvious and ridiculous way. "Babies should be issued handguns for self defense" is absurd because it is such an obviously false and ridiculous statement. Or "Slashdot needs yet another car analogy" -- ditto. Therefore:

I don't follow you, both have the ad absurdum label for much the same reason. Both can be applied correctly or not. I fail to see how it is "funny". But we're severely off topic here, so never mind; it's probably some really specific humor deficiency on my part.

Wiki does a horrible job of explaining this fallacy, and only gives one use case and definition. I'd recommend a college Logic book which explains the fallacy very well in numerous ways. My old text book spends a chapter on this one because it's not a simple fallacy.

To your second point, it's not a humor deficiency. People were showing different ways of defining this fallacy. Some of them correct, others not. A fallacy is a logic error, it does not prove true or false. It can surely help to demonstrate

The 24th amendment to the consitution and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 both come to mind (although the amendment was ratified January 23rd, 1964, so it's a few months over 50 years). I agree with the statement that our laws tend to restrict rights much more than they grant them, though. In theory, you've got the right to do anything that isn't forbidden by law, so the only laws that cause a net gain in freedom are the ones that restrict actions that take away someone else's freedom.

and no amount of training is going to fix that particular class of problems

A properly trained person is far less likely to try and use Dangerous Tool X when inebriated than an untrained person. Even so, we have to learn to accept that sometimes bad people do bad shit, but that's not a valid excuse for limiting the rights of the billions of not-bad people who don't do bad shit.

Most of the world knows that the more guns there are in the hands of citizens, the more shootings and gun crimes there are.

Most of the world _might_ think this, but know it? I've seen evidence for that assertion and it's inverse. I don't know which is sound, nor do I care. Clearly mere legal ownership rates is not the most important factor in gun violence considering you can find evidence to support any position you wish to take on that one.

and a lower rate of economic success...draw all the conclusion you want but until everyone starts crapping golden eggs like your average above average American citizen then shut your yap. Did I just hear a toilet flush? Insert tail between legs.

I am sure you would agree to the idea of a gun license to keep arms, right mate?

I'm not GP, but yeah, actually.

The word "license" is a bit tricky, because it implies a bit of tracking and government oversight which probably won't fly in a business like gun sales. However, requiring some form of in-house training before sale of a gun wouldn't be a terrible idea.

As one option, we could require a certified gun-safety person administer the training (look, I'm making jobs!) Before you purchase a firearm, you and Captain Safety have to spend some time on the range. He/she would observe as

We, the American community, can train each other in the proper operation of the tool known as a "firearm" without the nanny-state looking over our shoulders, as we do with so many other specialized tools. To whit, if one wants to learn how to use the tools needed to build guitars, they apprentice with a luthier, not some government agent.

We, the American community, can train each other in the proper operation of the tool known as a "firearm" without the nanny-state looking over our shoulders, as we do with so many other specialized tools.

Certification has the same issue as gun licensing, which is not an issue for gun shops as much as it's a concern for being tracked and tagged as a gun owner by the Government.

Make it part of public schools where everyone is a potential gun owner and I'd agree easily.

The common misnomer of the 2nd amendment is that a person owns a gun for self protection. The real purpose of the amendment is so that citizens in mass can revolt against corrupt government. (I don't mean to imply you made this misnomer, just p

The gun rights supporters oppose training requirements for the same reason pro-choice supporters oppose any forms of restriction on abortion. They both recognise that regulation can easily be used as constitutional workrounds: The government cannot ban X, but they can require X is only available after filling in form 3940-subsection-C in triplicate and submitting to a federal agency which has an annual budget of $50 and a two-year backlog on processing the paperwork.

This is a very common approach in the US, where various levels of government are often working at cross-purposes and actively trying to subvert one another. Witness things like zoning laws being used to ban sexually orientated businesses, or sexual offender exclusion zones that are intentionally overlapped so entire cities are without a square inch not somehow covered. If there was a requirement that individuals were required to undergo gun training and get a license, an anti-gun administration could deliberately underfund the department or set certification standards so high as to be humanly impossible to pass. In the same way that some states have passed laws which require any doctor performing an abortion have admitting privilidges at a local hospital, in full knowledge that for many clinics there are no hospitals within range that would grant such privledges and thus the requirement is intentionally impossible to comply with.

The gun rights supporters oppose training requirements for the same reason pro-choice supporters oppose any forms of restriction on abortion.

This being the second reply apparently presuming that I was referring to some sort of government-approved licensure process, I feel compelled to point out that I by no means meant to imply that either situation should require such approval.

I was merely pointing out the absolute fact that properly trained people are far less likely to misuse a tool than people who are not properly trained.

The government cannot ban X, but they can require X is only available after filling in form 3940-subsection-C in triplicate and submitting to a federal agency which has an annual budget of $50 and a two-year backlog on processing the paperwork.

It amazes me how people don't understand that owning weaponry is a right that NO OTHER CITIZEN is supposed to be able to infringe. Every single adult citizen is supposed to be able to own a weapon, regardless of training or qualification. The only true qualification is to be alive. You, me, your waiter, your drycleaner, EVERYONE.

It amazes me how people don't understand that owning weaponry is a right that NO OTHER CITIZEN is supposed to be able to infringe. Every single adult citizen is supposed to be able to own a weapon, regardless of training or qualification. The only true qualification is to be alive. You, me, your waiter, your drycleaner, EVERYONE.

Um, no. Just like the freedom of speech is not 100% absolute, there are reasonable limits to owning weaponry. Felons, especially with violent crime histories, and people with mental illnesses rendering judgement suspect have NO BUSINESS owning firearms or gaining access to them. The regular citizenry, with a few exceptions, doesn't need to own heavy weaponry (what some people arbitrarily separate into "ordnance").

The truth is, every right, including every constitutional right, has its logical limits. What

That is not what the Second Amendment says, nor was that the intent of its author's. Every citizen has the right to own a gun, what part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand? Your 'truth is' statement pretty much is saying 'well i interpret it this way'. The text of teh 2nd is clear, every citizen should be able to own a gun, period. Further, your felon rule is bullshit when felonies are give out like candy. That level of charge is historically reserved for actual true harmful crime, like treas

I agree. Freedom is largely dangerous--and scary. We should seriously work to abolish it. Let's start by whittling away at family ties by associating government with fundamental welfare of individuals....then we can move on to legislating the minute details of people's lives and parlay that into an attack on education by nullifying personal responsibility. I have a website....whitehouse.gov

Are you really stupid enough to think that the bozos in Nevada would have had a chance against a Hellfire missile? You really think that the reason the gov't didn't send in an attack drone is because the loonies were armed with popguns? Damn, the ACs are getting dumber all the time.

Literally nothing in common with Marxs' philosophy= communism. Who cares if the actual ideas you're describing go back more clearly to Machiavelli and Hobbes? Might as well call it communism, since those were the bad guys.

It's true that America doesn't yet have a police state to rival the gestapo. Nevertheless there are many troubling developments that have created observable similarities. Furthermore the march of technology has allowed much less visibility of the same degree of surveillance.

The gestapo couldn't have dreamed of a quickly searchable list of every phone call in Italy, its time, related phone numbers, and numbers called by those other numbers. They couldn't have dreamed of